"Pay no attention to that man behind the keyboard!"
Posted on 06/23/2004 8:30:32 PM PDT by AdamSelene235
BRIGHTON - Rick E. Stanley came face to face Tuesday with the Adams County district judge he wanted arrested by a militia for ruling against him on his appeal of a weapons conviction.
District Judge Donald W. Marshall Jr. found himself on the witness stand rather than on the bench as he testified against Stanley, a gun rights activist.
Stanley, 49, is on trial on two felony charges of attempting to influence a public servant. An Adams County jury is expected to begin deliberations today.
The trial stems from a "notice of order" Stanley sent to Marshall and to Thornton municipal Judge Charles J. Rose after he was convicted of violating a city ordinance for carrying a firearm on public property. Stanley had appealed to the 17th Judicial District Court, where Marshall reviewed the case and upheld Stanley's conviction. Stanley served 90 days in jail.
Both judges testified that they became concerned for their safety when they read the "notice of order," which said they would be arrested by the "Mutual Defense Pact Militia" if the conviction wasn't reversed.
Marshall and Rose said that SWAT teams guarded their homes for a few days after they received the notices. Marshall also said he had to reacquaint himself with a firearm for his own protection.
"Certainly, I was alarmed, and frankly shocked, that a document of this nature would be filed with the court," Marshall testified.
Stanley took the stand Tuesday afternoon and testified that he believed the judges had violated his federal and state constitutional rights to carry a gun, particularly after Gov. Bill Owens signed a bill last year that prohibited municipalities from enacting ordinances stricter than federal and Colorado gun laws.
"I was giving them a notice that they were violating the law and that they should stop doing that," Stanley testified.
Stanley said he was campaigning in September 2002 for the U.S. Senate as a Libertarian at the Thornton Harvest Fest and openly carrying a loaded .357 handgun in a side holster.
The U.S. Army veteran testified that he singled out Thornton because he was aware of the city's ordinance banning handguns on public property.
"The Colorado Constitution said you could, and that's a protected and guaranteed right that was not to be called into question," he said in response to a question from his lawyer, R. Scott Reisch.
This week's trial represents the second time Stanley has challenged a local ordinance in the last three years. Denver police arrested him for violating a similar city ordinance.
Stanley said he was passing out fliers and even engaging in a friendly conversation with a couple of police officers at the 2002 campaign event in Thornton. Later, however, several officers found him, arrested him and took his weapon away, he said.
Under cross-examination by Mark D. Warner, chief trial deputy district attorney, Stanley blamed the government for infringing on people's constitutional rights, and he denounced the judges for being conspirators.
In his most recent arrest, Stanley was apprehended by a SWAT team Oct. 18.
Stanley's battles with the government
• June 9: IRS and other federal agents raided his home and business, Stanley Fastener & Shop Supply in northeast Denver.
• 2002: A Denver jury convicted Stanley of carrying a loaded semiautomatic handgun in his holster at a downtown Denver park during a 2001 rally. Stanley said he took the gun to the rally as a deliberate challenge to Denver's gun-control ordinance.
Interesting response for a judge who claims there is no right to bear arms.
If we as Americans do not have the right to bear arms then what gives this judge the right! Typical communist!
Not only is he right, the one judge should be charged for the costs of his SWAT protection.
Simply by the fact that an individual may in certain circumstances use a firearm to defend his or her life does not mean that Thornton's Dangerous Weapons Ordinance deprives the defendant of any meaningful exercise of his right to defend his life and liberty, and the defendant's speculations as to when a dangerous weapon may be useful for defensive purposes leave the court unconvinced.
By the court:
Duly signed original in court file
_________________________
Donald W. Marshall, Jr.
District Court Judge
Rick Stanley is a crazy big mouth.
You know he's not going to win this, don't you?
This is a serious problem.
The proclamations of our rulers are "presumed to be constitutional" and the defendant is presumed guilty until he proves himself innocent beyond a reasonable doubt.
Interesting inversion.
Naturally, the government has no interest in limiting its own power, so any serious attempt to challenge a law which is "presumed to be constitutional" will simply be denied cert.
We have rights, but only if courts feel like granting them.
Perhaps, but his cases certainly provide insight into the nature our supposed "rights"....Rights that we must prove constitutional beyond a reasonable doubt.
I've always known that but now I know how as well as why he will lose.
>>>Stanley, 49, is on trial on two felony charges of attempting to influence a public servant. An Adams County jury is expected to begin deliberations today.
I'm not saying the system is perfect, but Stanley wanted a private militia to arrest two officers of the court. These are serious charges. I surprised they didn't charge him with threatening the two judges lives. He's good at that. Remember his remarks 2002 campaign about wanting to see Sen Wayne Allard hung? Mike Rosen tore him apart for those outrageous remarks on KOA and rightfully so.
Stanley is a first class troublemaker.
You know he's not going to win this, don't you?"
I doubt if stanley thinks he will win it.
I have respect for him for doing what he's doing.
Well, we can't have that, now can we. I also hear he's a crazy loud mouth and a whack job. Fine Constitutional arguments.
This isn't about the Constitution and individual rights. It's about Stanley trying to influence and intimidate officers of the court. That's a felony!
Yeah, that was pretty stupid.
This isn't about the Constitution and individual rights.
Sure.
If Stanley wants to challenge a municiple court judgment against him, he should do it through the appeals process and not by breaking the law. He served 90 days for the original infraction. This could get him a lot more time behind bars. Personally, I wouldn't mind if he was put away for an extended period of time for this incident. One day he might lose it altogether and wind up shooting someone. Stanley can't be trusted.
He did so and was denied cert. As Marshall sez, the challenged statute is "presumed to be constitutional, and the party challenging its validity has the burden of proving unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt"
Except you'll never be granted cert, tee hee.
Don't you worry the IRS and the Joint Terrorism Task Force are after him now.
You do NOT assert your rights and get away with it.
Stanley can petition the circuit court for redress and get a hearing. That will cost him more money and more of his time. Stanley keeps banging his head against a brick wall and what has he accomplished? NOTHING!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.